Bad
things often come in good packages. Currently both houses of congess are
considering ethics bills to provide for much-needed lobbying and earmark
reform. However, buried in one section of both house and senate bills
are provisions to severely restrict the ability of grassroots organizations
to monitor the actions of their elected representatives and report on
these to their clients. In reality, it will achieving exactly the opposite
of ethics reform because it allows for more congressional acvitivty away
from public scrutiny.

The
advent of alternative media has had a major impact on U.S. politics for
the last twenty years. Slowly but surely the exclusive chokehold the country's
national information gatekeepers -- major radio and TV networks plus the
major newswire services -- previously held on the flow of news has been
eroded by talk radio, both on-air and internet, weblogs and online newspapers.

A decade
ago politicians discovered with much chagrin that this "alternative media"
was actually affecting the outcomes of elections and limiting what they
could get away with once in office. Statements and actions by politicians
which the mainliners left unchallenged were examined minutely in the alternative
media. Even small sections of pending bills lawmakers hoped wouldn't be
noticed have made it into blogs and on the air in record time, resulting
in angry calls to force removal of the offending provisions. There are
too many people watching them carefully and reporting through the relatively
inexpensive medium of the internet.

Now
it seems some congressmen want to fight back. Buried within Senate
Bill One, which as we pointed out promotes long-sought lobbying reform,
exists Section 220 defining individuals or organizations reaching more
than 500 people on a grassroots level with information about political
issues as lobbying organizations, if the information can be construed
as urging people to contact congress.

These
individuals or groups would be required to register and subsequently file
unwieldy amounts of paperwork, whenever they transmit political information
to their subscribers. Failure to do so would result in $50,000-$100,000
fines per violation plus jail time for willful failure to comply.
This would be a staggering burden of proof and compliance to small grass
roots individuals or organizations affected by the new requirements.

Depending
on how the language of the bill is interpreted, groups affected by this
opprobrious legislation includes publishers of small newsletters and financial
publications, websites, broadcast and internet talk show hosts, alternative
radio shows, public interest organizations, civic organizations, even
churches and religious denominations, and other nonprofit groups. The
definitions include even private individuals, who might voluntarily pay
for media space to distribute important messages to the general public
on political matters with which they are concerned.

Under
Senate Bill One and its House companion bill H.R. 4682 an organization
is classified as a “grassroots lobbying firm” if it attempts to influence
the general public to contact federal officials in order to express their
own views on a federal issue. It must spend only only $50,000 ($25,000
under the House bill) for such efforts in a quarterly period, it will
be required to register as lobbyists. Many radio programs and websites
easily spend that amount of money in the course of their activities.

This
is not the first time Congress has sought to impede freedom of speech.
Every so often an attempt is made to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which
requires broadcasters to provide equal time and balanced viewpoints for
political and social issues. While this sounds fair, and it worked when
only editorials were involved, in reality it creates a nightmare for radio
and TV station licensees that engage in talk formats, because the paperwork
and logistics required to comply with such a law make it impossible for
the stations to function. As such the Fairness Doctrine is a stealth way
to surpress free speech on radio stations by making it very difficult
for them to function. As such, even the Financial Sense Newshour might
be forced "off the air."

Providing
this type of compliance for talk shows is impossible and the risk of large
fines for violations of arbitrary stipulations is so great, that stations
tend to cancel talk shows and run programming they consider to be less
"risky." In essence the talk shows can be chased off the air just with
the threat of arbitrary fines and penalties. Senate Bill One will have
the same effect on small grassroots publishers, websites, radio shows
and organizations if it passes as is. Remember, failure to jump through
all the paperwork hoops properly for Senate Bill One could result in $50,000-$100,000
fines per violation!

Currently,
an amendment to Senate Bill One been proposed by Senator Robert Bennett
(R-UT) to remove Subsection 220 from the bill, which includes grassroots
organizations among those classified as lobbying organizations. Persons
concerned about the loss of alternative media and the danger to free speech
should contact their senators and urge them to vote for the Bennett amendment.
Members of the House should be urged to vote against provisions in House
Resolution 4682, which included grassroots organizations.

It's
interesting to note that if Senate Bill One were currently law, writing
this would be illegal because we had not filed the proper paperwork with
the federal government. Assaults like this on the First Amendment and
the right of the people to have free speech and seek redress must not
to be tolerated in whatever form they appear.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

There
is debate among legal experts as to exactly how the provisions of Senate
Bill One could ultimately be interpreted and applied, which brings us
down to a rule of thumb: If we can't agree what this means as a bill now,
we definitely don't want it as law later.

As a 40-year broadcast
news veteran, John Loeffler is host of the nationally-syndicated news
program Steel on Steel, which can be heard at www.steelonsteel.com.
Steel on Steel monitors geopolitics, religious and worldview issues, as
well as early-warning intelligence on global trends.

Persons
concerned about the loss of alternative media and the danger to free speech
should contact their senators and urge them to vote for the Bennett amendment.
Members of the House should be urged to vote against provisions in House
Resolution 4682, which included grassroots organizations.